Denver’s Career Service Authority board would have the public believe that Deputy Sheriff William Lewis did not report a colleague had punched an inmate because he did not see it occur.

And Lewis did indeed testify he didn’t see it occur.

Never mind video evidence that very much indicates Lewis could hardly help but witness fellow Deputy Thomas Ford punch an inmate in the face in a brutal assault. The Career Service board believes the video does not provide “indisputable evidence.”

What would constitute such evidence for the board? Would a deputy actually have to participate in an assault for the board to be sure his eyes weren’t closed when the blows landed?

Lewis was fired, but will now be reinstated over the objections of city officials and receive back pay of nearly 14 months. It’s a disturbing outcome.

Equally disturbing is how the Career Service board in its decision elected to lecture the Department of Safety for expecting deputies to tell the truth when filing reports.

“We do not believe the report-writing requirements were ever intended to act as constant, non-stop honesty tests,” the board wrote. It faulted the city for disciplining officers who file a report that “may be missing a fact” — you know, a little thing like the fact that a colleague just cold-cocked a helpless inmate.

Pathetic.

Unfortunately, this recent ruling is not the only one from Career Service this year that undermines Denver’s efforts to reform a sheriff’s department wracked by scandal, incidents of excessive force and major legal payouts. At least two other decisions reveal that Career Service does not believe it should enforce discipline according to the department’s guidelines, commonly known as the “discipline matrix.”

In July, a hearing officer wrote, “Irrespective of the agency’s decision under its matrix, I am not bound by that disciplinary decision tool. Instead I assess the agency’s choice of the level of discipline … under a reasonableness standard.”

In another decision, the full board weighed in with a similar opinion, saying it was not bound by the matrix.

This is terribly misguided, and risky, too. As Independent Monitor Nick Mitchell has written, “The matrix was implemented … to create consistency in the administration of discipline” and to ensure public confidence. Indeed, one of the first things the U.S. Justice Department does when it intervenes with a troubled police agency — see Albuquerque, for example — is require a discipline matrix that guarantees consistent discipline.

The Career Service Authority’s ad hoc approach jeopardizes reform of the sheriff’s department and consistency in discipline. The matrix should be just as binding in the appeals process regarding discipline as it is in the initial decision by the safety manager.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

There is no rhyme or reason, and nothing that could pass for a justifiable goal or an ounce of sense, in the infliction of misery on the 800,000 federal employees either on furlough or working without pay.